Institutional responses to student
plagiarism in UK HEI’s: interim findings from
the AMBeR project
Dr. Fiona Duggan
7th September 2007
Reactions
• Reluctance
• Recognition
• Relief
• Acceptance
Progress?
• Turnitin questions on discussion list attract more
responses than any other subject
• Paper on ‘contract cheating’ attracted most
media coverage at 2006 Conference
• Institutions still ‘re-inventing the wheel’
More progress
• Issues now being debated throughout education
sector
• Joint initiatives between HE and QCA to develop
common approach
• Holistic approach harnessing the benefits of
technology becoming standard approach
OIAHE call
• Keynote presentation at 2006 conference called
for study of current regulations and penalties
• JISC funded study (AMBeR) commenced
December 2006
• Three stages to project
AMBeR aims
• To inform institutional policy
• To inform national policy
• To provide a benchmark against which future
activity can be measured
AMBeR - stages
• Collation of existing regulations and applicable
penalties
• Survey to identify number and range of penalties
applied in specific timeframe
• Case studies to determine process of penalty
application in given set of circumstances
AMBeR – First stage
• Data collection now complete
• Contacted 168 HEI’s with request for a copy of
their current academic misconduct regulations
• 153 responses in final analysis (91%)
o
Fu
rth
er
Fo
I
Ac
n
rm
fo
t io
rm
al
n"
al
W
ar
W
ni
ar
ng
ni
ng
/R
"M
ep
ar
ri m
ke
an
d
R
d
o
es
n
M
ub
e
m
As
rit
is
s"
se
si
ss
on
m
f
or
As
Fi
en
ne
FU
se
tM
ss
"R
L
a
L
m
rk
ef
As
M
en
le
R
ar
se
ed
ct
tM
ks
ss
i
v
u
ar
e
c
m
As
ed
G
k
e
se
nt
ra
R
(N
ed
ss
de
M
on
uc
m
ar
"
en
k
ed
Sp
R
tM
ec
to
ed
ifi
ar
Fa
uc
c)
k
ed
il
R
/0
ed
M
t
o
od
(R
uc
Pa
ul
es
ed
ss
e
i
t
to
M
M
fo
ar
od
F
r
ai
k
Pa
ul
l/
R
e
ss
M
ed
0
M
M
od
)
(N
uc
od
ar
ul
o
ed
k
u
e
le
R
R
C
(N
es
ed
M
ou
on
i t)
ar
uc
rs
k
ed
S
ew
R
p
ec
ed
to
or
k
M
ifi
uc
Fa
C
od
c)
e
i
om
l/
d
ul
to
0
e
po
(
M
Pa
R
ne
ar
es
ss
nt
k
it
R
R
fo
ed
ed
r
Pa
uc
uc
ed
ss
ed
)
to
to
Fa
Fa
il
il
R
/0
/0
ed
uc
(N
ed
o
R
/C
es
Su
ap
it)
sp
pe
en
d
si
M
C
on
ul
la
ss
tip
i
le
fic
M
at
od
io
n
ul
es
D
F
ai
eg
le
re
d
Fa
e
R
il
ed
Ye
uc
Q
ar
ed
ua
li f
t
Ex
o
ic
Pa
at
pe
io
l le
ss
n
d
R
/F
ed
ai
uc
le
ed
d
(a
ll
ty
pe
s)
"N
10%
13%
1%
34%
28%
30%
35%
59%
50%
1%
17%
13%
66%
67%
78%
99%
Warning (or less)
Minor penalty
Assessment-level penalty
Module-level penalty
Degree-level penalty
Expulsion
9%
26%
26%
20%
17%
19%
13%
60%
10%
70%
61%
80%
■
■
■
■
■
■
19%
90%
17%
100%
40%
0%
Penalty
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
←
Level 1
→
←
HEI A
Level 2
→
←
Level 3/M
→
■ Mild
■ Moderate
■ Severe
1st
2nd
3rd/+
1st
2nd
3rd/+
1st
2nd
3rd/+
Penalty
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
←
Level 1
→
←
HEI B
Level 2
→
←
Level 3/M
→
■ Mild
■ Moderate
■ Severe
1st
2nd
3rd/+
1st
2nd
3rd/+
1st
2nd
3rd/+
Penalty
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
←
Level 1
→
←
HEI C
Level 2
→
←
Level 3/M
→
■ Mild
■ Moderate
■ Severe
1st
2nd
3rd/+
1st
2nd
3rd/+
1st
2nd
3rd/+
35%
29%
30%
24%
25%
A
20%
B
15%
14%
11%
8%
C
10%
7%
3%
5%
3%
1%
0%
Negative
0
45 - 50
50 - 55
55 - 60
60 - 65
65 - 70
Penalty Gradation Score
70 - 75
75 (or
above)
Stage 2
• Deadline for responses this week
• Already over 80 responses received
• Analysis to be undertaken in next few weeks
Next stage
• Report findings to OIAHE
• Disseminate findings to sector
• Identify potential case study sites for final phase
of project